I think Allison might be rendering the argument like that so that it's basically a non-sequiter — Moliere
If p, then q
Not q
Therefore, not p
you said that is a non-sequitur...did you mean appears like a non-sequitur? — KantDane21
"Anything" is a remarkably vague category! That might also be what Allison is getting at -- we started with "Anything", and didn't draw out the deduction that "Action" is an anything. — Moliere
The argument could also be read syllogistically, in which case 'anything' makes more sense:
All appearances are known mediately
No first-person actions are known mediately
Therefore, no first-person actions are appearances
Of course this is also valid. — Leontiskos
If anything is an appearance it is known mediately,
The individual knows that he (or she) acts non-mediately
Thus, action cannot be an appearance. — KantDane21
Modus tollens logic is of the form "If A, then B. Not A. Therefore, not B."as far as i can tell this is a modus tollens argument.
seems perfectly valid. (it does not have the form of a fallacy) — KantDane21
Check again.Modus tollens logic is of the form "If A, then B. Not A. Therefore, not B." — Alkis Piskas
Valid and sound.If anything is an appearance it is known mediately,
The individual knows that he (or she) acts non-mediately
Thus, action cannot be an appearance. — KantDane21 — ItIsWhatItIs
What did I say exactly that is wrong and why? — Alkis Piskas
Modus tollens logic is of the form "If A, then B. Not A. Therefore, not B." — Alkis Piskas
I know what I said. I asked what exactly is wrong with that.You said this, as ↪L'éléphant pointed out:
Modus tollens logic is of the form "If A, then B. Not A. Therefore, not B."
— Alkis Piskas — Leontiskos
Except that we can't do it that way. Remember the OP's question is "IS it both valid and sound?"We could thus set this up as a proof by contradiction by assuming our premises and assuming that "action IS appearance." This results in a contradiction where action both is and is not a member of the set of "things known mediately," — Count Timothy von Icarus
If anything is an appearance it is known mediately,
The individual knows that he (or she) acts non-mediately
Thus, action cannot be an appearance. — KantDane21
Perhaps other people have recognized what seems to me to be obviously wrong, but I haven't picked it up. — Ludwig V
This makes it clear that the question is whether action is known only non-mediately, and that would seem to be false, which makes the argument as reformulated valid, but unsound. — Janus
I didn't understand that this was a Kantian discussion. — Ludwig V
A syllogism suffering premises with no relation to each other, is a paralogism — Mww
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.